what's "package" talking about here?
what's "package" talking about here?
(OP)
HEY,everyone here,i havnt been here for a long time,are all of you fine?
Recently,i read the book"chassis system design methodology".In the book,One sentence goes like this:"The overall design of suspension systems is mainly driven by several key factors, including handling, ride,package, cost and durability."The "package" confuses me,does it mean assembly technique or other concept? Could anyone make a explaination for me? Thank you in advance.
Recently,i read the book"chassis system design methodology".In the book,One sentence goes like this:"The overall design of suspension systems is mainly driven by several key factors, including handling, ride,package, cost and durability."The "package" confuses me,does it mean assembly technique or other concept? Could anyone make a explaination for me? Thank you in advance.





RE: what's "package" talking about here?
Regards
Pat
See FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies for tips on use of eng-tips by professional engineers &
http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm
for site rules
RE: what's "package" talking about here?
RE: what's "package" talking about here?
Sometimes the same space is "ideal" for more than one item, if you only look at each of them in isolation from the rest. At this point you have to assign priority to one and move the other(s). Repeat as necessary. Consider the compromises that might occur as you try to fit the exhaust system, chassis structure, rear suspension, fuel tank, and spare tire well all together while still providing as much useful trunk volume as possible.
Norm
RE: what's "package" talking about here?
Then vehicle dynamics come along and say we can't do this, and that is silly, and we need this. Then styling come along and add their 2 cents. Assembly then point out that in fact the subframe that's been sketched won't fit on a pallet. Crash tell us we can't possibly use a rigid subframe. NVH tell us we can't possibly have a compliant subframe. So we all bitch and moan and model and pout and argue and simulate and eventually compromises are reached. That's why having a Chapman or an Issigonis is quicker.
Typical realistic constraints imposed by packaging control placement of the steering rack and routing of the steering column, at the front, and rather more at the rear, depending on architecture.
Cheers
Greg Locock
New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?
RE: what's "package" talking about here?
Trailing arms with a twist-beam axle connecting the two sides, "packages" very well into the back end of a front-wheel-drive car, and millions of cars are built this way.
It would also conceptually work with rear engine rear drive, although it might not be the best choice for handling, and given that this layout has gone out of favour, I know of no examples although the little "smart" is sorta similar. Still, conceptually, it could work.
But it won't work with front-engine rear-wheel-drive (or all-wheel-drive), because the drive shaft wants to slice right through where the axle wants to be. The all-wheel-drive variations of what is normally a front-wheel-drive chassis with a twist-beam rear axle, usually have a completely different (either fully independent, or a complete solid axle) rear suspension design so that it will work with the drive shaft.
RE: what's "package" talking about here?
Also to be honest you can get away with stuff on a non driven axle that you can't on a driven axle, so commonality is not a given even if it all fits.
Cheers
Greg Locock
New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?